20 gauge chamber length

[Ronald Scott]

I don't have any reference material on Parker guns so I'm hoping someone here would be kind enough to answer my question. I am looking at a 20 gauge Parker -- it has 2 1/2' chambers. Is there a specific time period that Parker switched to 2 3/4" chambers on their 20 gauge guns? If so is there also a serial number range that would indicate 2 1/2' vs 2 3/4"? Thanks, Ron

[Garth Gustafson]

The Parker Story doesn't say when, but 2-1/2" was the standard 20ga chamber length at least until 1920.

[Dean Romig]

It likely changed to 2 3/4" under Remington ownership - earlier, I'm sure, by special order.





.

[Ronald Scott]

Thanks...

This is probably a dumb question but what exactly is a 2 1/2" chamber? Is the chamber exactly 2 1/2" long or is it chambered to fire 2 1/2" shells? I assume the latter -- so a 2 1/2" chamber is probably 2 3/4" long?

And as a followup, can a 2 1/2" chamber safely be lengthened to 2 3/4"? Pros and cons?

[Dean Romig]

Chambers are measured from the breech surface of the barrels forward to the point where the taper of the forcing cone begins. If it measures 2.5” then you have 2 1/2” chambers.
On chambers with the tapered forcing cone, paper shells that open 1/8” longer than the chamber length were intended to be used. The extra 1/8” of shell length that opened into the cone was to provide a superior gas seal.

It is not advisable to lengthen the chambers on these old doubles. Not only do you destroy the value of the gun, unless wall thickness is very carefully measured, lenthhening chambers can compromise the integrity/safety of the barrels




.

[Dave Noreen]

With Parker Bros. policy of holding chambers 1/8 inch shorter than the intended shell, many guns intended for the 2 1/2 inch 20-gauge shell actually have chambers about 2 3/8 inch to the forcing cone break. My 1930 vintage VH-Grade is so chambered.

[Dave Noreen]

From the 1890s onward, our North American ammunition companies offered paper 20-gauge NPEs and loaded shells in four lengths -- 2 1/2, 2 3/4, 2 7/8 and 3-inch. The "standard" 20-gauge shell was 2 1/2 inch and carried a maximum load of 2 1/4 drams of bulk smokeless powder or 18-grains of dense smokeless powder such as Infallible or Ballistite pushing 7/8 ounce of shot. Back in the day, our ammo companies didn't include the shell length on the box labels of "standard" length shells.

74370

The 2 3/4 inch, and longer, shells could be had with a slightly hotter load of 2 1/2 drams of bulk smokeless powder or 20-grains of dense smokeless powder such as Infallible or Ballistite pushing the same 7/8 ounce of shot. The perceived advantage of the longer 2 7/8 and 3 inch shells was more/better wadding.


74369

[Ken Hill]

I have a 20 gauge built in 1916. The PGCA letter states the gun have 2 5/8" chambers.

Ken

[Dean Romig]

How long are your barrels Ken?





.

[Ken Hill]

How long are your barrels Ken?
.

Dean,

The barrels are 28" and according to the letter the requested chokes were RH 40% and LH 60%.

Ken

[Garry L Gordon]

My 1918 DHE 20 was ordered to have 2 5/8 inch chambers. It has 30 inch barrels and open chokes as specified in the order.

[Scott Chapman]

My 1900 VH #97948 letters with 2 5/8" chambers with 28" choked modified and "close".

[Harold Lee Pickens]

Garry, a DHE 20 with 30" barrels and open chokes, would be a dream gun for me.
I have really come to like 30" open choke guns.

[Dave Noreen]

I have a 30-inch barrel, AE-Grade, 20-gauge, Ansley H. Fox that shipped in 1920 to B.H. Dyas Co. in Los Angles. The order card specified "chamber for 2 3/4 shell". The chambers are 2 5/8 inch.

74381

[Daryl Corona]

Wow Dave, what a great gun. How is she choked?

[Dave Noreen]

It cards full and full and measures .031" in both barrels. I bought it 15 years ago from Wes Dillon when he was still running the Gun Library at the flagship store in Sidney. Truth be told I shot one round of trap with it as a function test and it has been a gunroom queen ever since.

Saw Wes at the Colorado Gun Collectors show in May. He is living in Colorado now.

[Dean Romig]

Is Wes working for Morphy?





.

[Dean Romig]

I'll have to measure the chamber length in my ejector Sterlingworth 28" with .043" of choke in the left barrel.

I just checked - the chamber length is 2 5/8" which is correct for 2 3/4" shells.





.

[Daryl Corona]

It's probably 2.5" Dean but in the meanwhile check out the thread "2.5 vs. 2.75in. on the Fox site. Scott Kittridge has done some interesting, but not surprising to me, pattern testing with a 20ga. Fox.

By the way Dean, do you have the bore dimensions and the constrictions for both barrels?

[Dean Romig]

It's 2 5/8" Daryl. I edited my above post to reflect this.





.

[Ronald Scott]

I'll have to measure the chamber length in my ejector Sterlingworth 28" with .043" of choke in the left barrel.

I just checked - the chamber length is 2 5/8" which is correct for 2 3/4" shells.

You have to wonder why they make it so confusing. A loaded 2 3/4" shell is actually 2 1/4" long -- if it's a folded crimp, after it's fired it measures just under 2 5/8"

So why are they called 2 3/4" shells?

What average joe hunter would think it's ok to fire 2 3/4" shells in a gun with a 2 5/8" chamber?

If the gun with 2 5/8" chambers had the chamber length marked on the barrel would it say 2 5/8" or 2 3/4"?

The first picture from left to right:

loaded 2 3/4" 28 ga, fired 2 3/4" 28 ga, loaded 2 3/4" 20 ga, loaded 3" 12 ga, loaded 2 3/4" 12 ga, fired 2 3/4" 12 gauge

Second picture:

fired 2 3/4" 20 ga measures 2.618" (just under 2 5/8")

[Dean Romig]

Ron, not all shells of the same gauge are exactly the same length when fired.

“Average Joe hunter” needs to familiarize himself with chamber length and barrel wall thickness and the type of ammo he thinks he can use in these classic old doubles. If that’s too much trouble for him, he really has no business shooting classic old doubles.

A 2 5/8” chamber was made to shoot 2 3/4” shells. The shell when fired, would open about 1/8” into the forcing cone. The belief was that this would provide a better gas seal.

I also have 20 gauge Parkers with 2 3/8” chambers that were made to shoot 2 1/2” shells.

There is also a ‘stretch’ factor in plastic shells and none of the modern plastic shells were manufactured with the requirements of our classic old doubles.



.

[Dave Noreen]

Apparently, the SAAMI meeting where it was "suggested" that our manufacturers begin marking the chamber length on their shotguns was in 1937, and we begin seeing such markings on 1938 or 39 guns. Some examples from Remington autoloaders, August 1935 --

74398

May 1937 --

74400

April 1943 --

74399

[Drew Hause]

What Dave said.
A.P. Curtis published an article in the March 1938 American Rifleman entitled “Advantages of Short Shotgun Chambers” (courtesy of Larry Brown):
SAAMI, assembled in serious conference on March 26, 1937, passed the following resolution: “That an appropriate warning label be placed on all boxes containing smokeless powder shells, cautioning the consumer against using them in short chambered guns and also in guns with Damascus barrels and guns not in first-class condition.” The motion was made and seconded by representatives of two powder companies.
That same conference also passed a resolution requiring: “That all guns be marked so that the consumer will be able to tell the chamber length, as for example by marking 2 3/4 inch chamber etc.”

Hunter Arms lengthened the 20 gauge chambers from 2 1/2" to 2 3/4" in 1936.

[Ronald Scott]

A 2 5/8” chamber was made to shoot 2 3/4” shells. The shell when fired, would open about 1/8” into the forcing cone. The belief was that this would provide a better gas seal.

Dean -- if a 2 3/4" shell actually measures 2 1/4" (see my picture in post above) and when fired measure less than 2 5/8" (see second photo) how does it "open about 1/8" into the forcing cone?"

By my measurements the fired case doesn't even reach the forcing cone. So there is no way they could create a better gas seal. Maybe loaded roll crimp cartridges are longer than loaded folded crimp cartridges? I don't have any to measure.

[Dean Romig]

Dean -- if a 2 3/4" shell actually measures 2 1/4" (see my picture in post above) and when fired measure less than 2 5/8" (see second photo) how does it "open about 1/8" into the forcing cone?"

By my measurements the fired case doesn't even reach the forcing cone. So there is no way they could create a better gas seal. Maybe loaded roll crimp cartridges are longer than loaded folded crimp cartridges? I don't have any to measure.

Ron, you're missing one basic fact... These guns were built to the specifications of paper shotshell casings manufactured (cut) to specific lengths. All of the ammunition manufacturers (and there were far, far fewer then than there are today) adhered to specific measurements for paper shotshells.

We can't compare apples to oranges as in shotshells manufactured in the latter half of the 19th century and early 20th century and those manufactured today.

By the way, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the only shells in your picture of six that appear to be factory new are the two in the center.... the other four appear to be reloads.





.

[Scott Chapman]

Here is something that has been posted before. Scroll to about page 15 or so. The rest of the reading is pretty cool, too!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZIo0y746UsSRZIgRuuxwAbZjSBHitO_EanvwLYc-kGA/edit

[Ronald Scott]

Ron, you're missing one basic fact... These guns were built to the specifications of paper shotshell casings manufactured (cut) to specific lengths. All of the ammunition manufacturers (and there were far, far fewer then than there are today) adhered to specific measurements for paper shotshells.

We can't compare apples to oranges as in shotshells manufactured in the latter half of the 19th century and early 20th century and those manufactured today.

I don't believe I'm missing the point -- I made that very point in my last sentence about roll crimped cartridges. I totally understand the difference between modern manufactured plastic hulls and the older paper shells.

Regardless of the material used, the cartridge has one length when loaded (roll crimp or folded) and a longer length after it has been fired. Although I read about the 1/8" into the forcing cone theory in the article Scott Chapman provided a link to interesting it doesn't make sense to me. The paper hull obviously has a certain thickness and if it is not allowed to open fully (because it is 1/8" into the forcing cone) the wad and shot column would get squeezed down to a smaller diameter before entering the bore. How can that possibly be a good thing? To me the ideal would be for the cartridge to open fully in the chamber allowing the wad and shot to enter the bore without any constriction. Obviously the chamber length can't be so long that gas can escape around the wad. The other factor is the chamber diameter and hull thickness -- I would think the prefect situation would be to have the inside diameter of the hull (after being expanded by the gas pressure) be the same as the bore diameter -- that way the wad and shot column could make a smooth transition from the hull into the bore -- a difficult task since hulls don't all have the same wall thickness.

Check out this illustration, esp (c) showing the expanding gasses escaping past the squeezed down wad and shot column (caused by the hull opening into the forcing cone):

[Ronald Scott]

Here is the source of the attachment above:

https://books.google.com/books?id=inQCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA234#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Dean Romig]

Here is something that has been posted before. Scroll to about page 15 or so. The rest of the reading is pretty cool, too!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZIo0y746UsSRZIgRuuxwAbZjSBHitO_EanvwLYc-kGA/edit


May we know the author of this work of compilation?
We see the names of a few of our PGCA friends so can we presume this was compiled by Dr. Drew Hause?





.

[Scott Chapman]

The google document that I posted was previously posted by Drew Hause back in April of this year. He wrote:

"Major Sir Gerald Burrard, The Modern Shotgun, Volume II, “The Cartridge”, 1955 3rd Revised Edition, p. 154 in reference to modern “star” crimped paper cases
“For all practical purposes any increase in pressure due to the longer cartridge case really does not exist provided the correct powder and shot charges for a nominal 2 1/2 inch cartridge are used.”

Obviously this applies to 2 3/4" hulls in 2 5/8" 12g chambers.

A summary of Bell's and Armbrust's study “Long Shells in Short Chambers”, in “Finding Out for Myself” Part V, Double Gun Journal, Winter 2001 is about 1/3 down here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...vwLYc-kGA/edit

The pressure increase for one load was 1200 psi

OTOH: I had a 1924 20g Parker with chambers slightly longer than 2 3/8". Recoil with standard 2 3/4" 7/8 oz. skeet loads was severe, and the case mouths were feathered, evidence that the hull had entered the forcing cone."
__________________

[Bill Murphy]

The long and the short of it is that these are shotguns, fired at low pressures, from thick barrels. It just doesn't matter how long the shells or the chambers are, as long as the shells are not overloaded, everything will be fine, the pheasants will be dead and the guns will not blow up. I think Dr. Drew and others have clarified that in past research.

[Drew Hause]

Scott: please help us understand your question.

Scroll down about 1/3 here and there are several references to shell and chamber length
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZIo0y746UsSRZIgRuuxwAbZjSBHitO_EanvwLYc-kGA/edit

“Mr. Griffith on Shotgun Patterns”, 1897
https://books.google.com/books?id=inQCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA234
Studied “Turnover” – case longer than the chamber in reference to vintage roll-crimped shells

Charles Askins “The Cone” Field & Stream, Nov. 1921
https://books.google.com/books?id=UPtAAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA700&lpg
W.A. King for Parker Bros.
Referring to the cone, we ordinarily permit our shells to lap into it 1/8-inch, but as a matter of fact we have found that the majority of guns will shoot a better pattern with even more lap than this. In fact, we can secure extra good patterns by shooting extra long shells, permitting the lap to extent to the point where we begin to tear off the ends of the paper. At that point we do not seek to give more lap. In user’s hands we do not advocate the use of longer shells than those which give 1/8 lap.

Everything in the shotshell world changed when Remington introduced the ‘SP’ high density polyethylene compression formed hull with a separate base wad in 1960, followed by the polyethylene ‘Power Piston’ wad in 1966.
Winchester/Western introduced the Mark 5 polyethylene shot collar in 1961, followed by the one piece compression formed plastic hull for the Super-X in 1964 and AA Target shells in 1965.
The Federal Riefenhauser (straight wall) ribbed plastic shotshell was introduced in 1965.

Many modern 2 3/4" plastic hulls are indeed a bit shorter than 2 3/4" after firing; the box is still labeled 2 3/4".

http://pic20.picturetrail.com:80/VOL1373/6511424/24488932/410136599.jpg

I think there are good reasons to not use 2 3/4" loads in a 20g with 2 3/8" chambers.
2 3/4" 12 g loads are of no concern in 2 5/8" chambers.

[Scott Chapman]

Dr. Drew: I didn't have a question. Dean asked me for the author of the google document. I had reposted your info from a April 2019 thread in order to provide insight as to the variations in length of fired modern 20 gauge plastic shotshells.

From my keeping up with the discussion on this forum and additional reading, it is my understanding that many learned students of turn of the century fine shotguns believe that 20 gauge guns with 2 3/8" chamber were made to shoot 2 1/2" shells and 2 5/8" chamber guns were made to shoot 2 3/4". However there is variation in the length modern plastic shotshells which can muddy the waters.

Some on this board report to regularly use 2 3/4" shells in guns that are not 2 5/8" chambered, while some will only use 2 1/2". Some argue that it is more about the pressures generated (specifically when talking about composite barrel) and the stress on the old wood.

My take home message is that the more valuable a gun is and perhaps the older (composite barrels +/- oil soaked wood) the more likely the owner is to shoot low pressure RST 2 1/2" shells. I feel that you can't go wrong with this option even with a shooter quality VH or Trojan.

There are some that use standard 2 3/4" ammo in fluid steel barrelled guns (with adequate wall thickness) and never look back. Including heavy pressure waterfowl loads.

It is all what you are comfortable with personally. If you are worried about whether a 2 3/4" shell is going to pattern poorly, produce too much recoil, etc. etc, go out and shoot it on a pattern board and find out. If you don't want to go to the trouble, spend a little extra and buy RST shells and don't worry about anything!

[Ken Hill]

Another interesting thread on 20 gauge chamber length f I'm 2017. http://parkerguns.org/forums/showthread.php?t=22622&highlight=RST

Also, the last time someone asked RST the 2 3/4" loads were lower pressure than their 2 1/2" loads. http://parkerguns.org/forums/showthread.php?t=24968&highlight=20+gauge

Ken

[Bruce Day]

The long and the short of it is that these are shotguns, fired at low pressures, from thick barrels. It just doesn't matter how long the shells or the chambers are, as long as the shells are not overloaded, everything will be fine, the pheasants will be dead and the guns will not blow up. I think Dr. Drew and others have clarified that in past research.

Dead on right. How many times has this same matter come up ? Over and over and somebody must feel that their gun is so infirm that it will blow up if the slightest miscalculation is made . Enough, enough.

[Dean Romig]

Agreed Bruce and Bill - but we can choose to be responsible or we can choose to be irresponsible when it comes to what ammo we stuff into our various shotguns....

There are neophytes in the realm of old side-by-sides who join our ranks or come onto our various websites every day of the year and I think it borders on the irresponsible to indicate they can 'throw caution to the wind' and shoot anything they want in their recent acquisitions.

As for me, I will continue to advocate for caution.





.

[Drew Hause]

I'm with Dean. Since none of us can know the abuse to which our maybe 120 year old guns have been inflicted, it would seem prudent to use reasonable due diligence to at least establish that the chambers/barrels have not been modified, and to use loads ballistically equivalent to those for which the gun was originally designed.
Parker Bros. probably knew what they were doing, documented the load with which the gun was patterned on the hang tag, proved every gun, and built in a significant margin of safety.
It HAS been proven that the pressures generated by turn-of-the-century smokeless loads were quite similar to today's if at the same payload and fps

Though opinions were offered, the cause of this blow up, to my knowledge, was never established by a metallurgical failure analysis
http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=491058&page=1

http://pic20.picturetrail.com:80/VOL1373/6511424/24513874/413569864.jpg

A buddy was bidding against somebody's grandma at an auction in Liberty, Mo. on a Damascus barrel 16g Parker. Grandma won, and told him she wanted it for her grandson to use turkey hunting. She didn't believe him when he suggested that use with modern turkey loads would not be a good idea.

[Drew Hause]

Since this is a very frequent question, maybe in the "Help" section at the top of the Forum a "PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE SHOOTING YOUR PARKER" post could be generated? The FAQs seem to be overlooked.

I just added "Please review the General Information "Is my shotgun safe to shoot?" FAQ before using your L.C. Smith or Hunter Arms Co. Fulton shotgun." to the header of the LCSCA Forum.

[Ronald Scott]

No wonder the neophyte is confused. In one place he finds Sherman Bell’s test results in the Winter 2001 DGJ article where he writes:

“With loads that are sensible in a light 2 1/2 inch gun, we see no dangerous pressure levels produced. I see no reason, related to safety, to modify an original 2 1/2 inch chambered gun to shoot 2 3/4 shells, if the 2 3/4 inch load you intend to use would develop pressure that is safe in that gun, when fired in a standard chamber.”


Then in another place he finds Larry Potterfield showing him how to lengthen the chamber of an antique Parker:

https://youtu.be/amBveFBnVgY

[Bruce Day]

Sherman Bell’s factually based article makes much sense .

My friend Larry Potterfield sells gunsmithing equipment . Quite successfully .

[William Davis]

Midway is good at selling tools. Turn a reamer with a tap wrench barrel held in a vise = bubba gunsmith.

https://youtu.be/l6yrnJIyjtU

William

[Ronald Scott]

Midway is good at selling tools. Turn a reamer with a tap wrench barrel held in a vise = bubba gunsmith.

https://youtu.be/l6yrnJIyjtU

William

Larry is no bubba gunsmith -- bubba gunsmith holds the barrels in one hand a dremel tool in the other.

A piloted reamer turned by hand can be a very precise way to lengthen a chamber or open a choke -- not withstanding the question of whether or not you should do it in the first place

[Dean Romig]

A choke reamer that passes completely out through the muzzle tells me one thing...





.

[William Davis]

Problem with that reamer set up it indexes with a bushing on the inside of a barrel that was bent to regulate. Depending on a possibly crooked tube to run the reamer straight is a recipe for muzzles not concentric. Some barrels may be straight others bent a fair amount to regulate. Your eye can see a thousandth or two out of round on the reamed muzzle easily.

No good rifle-smith would ream chambers without dialing in the barrel true from the inside on a bushed rod checked both inboard and outboard of the lathes headstock. Then running the reamer in the lathes tailstock that’s perfectly in line with the bore. May well turn the finish reamer by hand with the lathe out of gear, its still held in perfect alignment.

Shotgun muzzle no different than a rifle chamber except a factory machine made single barrel is usually straight and no regulation issues to consider. Hand regulated double very different situation .

William

[Ronald Scott]

Aside from the fact that we've been discussing chambers not chokes here's a quote from a fairly well respected shotgun smith Mike Orlen:

"To lengthen a chamber and/or a chamber forcing cone by hand, you will first need to secure the barrel in a bench vise. I like to use a couple of pieces of 2- by 4-inch lumber and an old shot bag to pad the vise. Make sure the barrel is held very tightly in your vise because there is a great amount of torque exerted during this operation.

"With a well oiled and sharp long forcing cone reamer, begin cutting your new chamber by turning the tool clockwise. You will be amazed at how quickly a sharpened tool begins to remove material. After cutting no more than 3/8 inch, remove your reamer, brush off the chips, push a patch through the bore, re-oil, and resume cutting. Always rotate the reamer in a clockwise direction—even when removing it from the bore."

The entire article can be found here:

https://www.gun-tests.com/special_reports/accessories/Chapter-23-Lengthening-Chambers-and-Forcing-Cones-14625-1.html#.XS2tI-hKi70

[Garry L Gordon]

I'll just buy a gun in good shape that is original, and shoot light loads of the size shell for which it was intended...and continue to read these discussions with interest.

I know for folks new to shooting old doubles things can be confusing at times, and there's a tendency to want succinct answers to straightforward questions. As I used to tell my students: for real life questions there is no answer "in the back of the book," you have to do your own thinking and research and solve the problem yourself.

[Dean Romig]

Aside from the fact that we've been discussing chambers not chokes here's a quote from a fairly well respected shotgun smith Mike Orlen:

"To lengthen a chamber and/or a chamber forcing cone by hand, you will first need to secure the barrel in a bench vise. I like to use a couple of pieces of 2- by 4-inch lumber and an old shot bag to pad the vise. Make sure the barrel is held very tightly in your vise because there is a great amount of torque exerted during this operation.

"With a well oiled and sharp long forcing cone reamer, begin cutting your new chamber by turning the tool clockwise. You will be amazed at how quickly a sharpened tool begins to remove material. After cutting no more than 3/8 inch, remove your reamer, brush off the chips, push a patch through the bore, re-oil, and resume cutting. Always rotate the reamer in a clockwise direction—even when removing it from the bore."

The entire article can be found here:

https://www.gun-tests.com/special_reports/accessories/Chapter-23-Lengthening-Chambers-and-Forcing-Cones-14625-1.html#.XS2tI-hKi70


I’ll begin by saying that I like Mike Orlen and have been to his home and workshop and have had him do some barrel work for me and for other friends, and he does good work.

Nowhere in his article on chamber and forcing cone lengthening does he ever address barrel wall thickness. He only says that chambers should never be lengthened on Damascus or Twist barrels - he simply mimics the warning that is printed on shotgun ammunition boxes. This is added simply as a guard against liability claims... heck, even RST prints their classic shotshell boxes with this warning. We all know this is all bovine excrement as long as Damascus, Twist, and even ‘fluid steel’ barrels are sound and of sufficient wall thickness in the critical area of the juncture where the front of the chamber begins the forcing cone.

Come on Mike, you can do better....





.

[William Davis]

Looked at the link, while he mentions hand reaming most of the article and photos are about proper set up in a lathe. Not mentioned is dialing in the barrel true or measuring thickness were the chamber will be altered. No doubt in my mind he does the work properly with careful consideration to the individual barrels ability to be altered safely . Likely some editor cut parts out of his article and insisted he speaks to the home mechanic.

Don’t think for a minute Mike Orlean is using Plumbers methods to alter chambers and chokes. On the other hand the Midway video is showing how to ruin a double in order to sell tools.

Leave the barrel work to experienced double gunsmith, price of a blotched job, value, function, or safety, on a Parker too high. Even better stay with appropriate ammunition don’t make the gun fit the shell.

William

[Dean Romig]

Likely some editor cut parts out of his article and insisted he speaks to the home mechanic.

William


Hey - hey, hey.... whadda ya talkin' about?:eek:





.

[Ronald Scott]

Don’t think for a minute Mike Orlean is using Plumbers methods to alter chambers and chokes. On the other hand the Midway video is showing how to ruin a double in order to sell tools.

William

Not to argue ... but he specifically says to clamp the barrels in a vice using 2x4's and an old shot bag. Sounds like "plumber's methods" to me. I don't think blaming the editor for his words holds merit. Maybe you can blame the editor for the title: "Learn how to perform home modifications on your shotgun!" But the words in the body of the article are clearly Mike's. Easy to find out. I too have been to his home, had work done by him, and found him to be very friendly and professional. All it would take is a phone call -- but why bother? Padding a shotgun in a bench vise is a common high end gunsmith technique, as is using a hand reamer.

[William Davis]

Opps no offense intended. We have a very good editor !

William

[Dean Romig]

Opps no offense intended. We have a very good editor !

William


No offense taken - all in jest. :bigbye:





.

[Ronald Scott]

Opps no offense intended. We have a very good editor !

William

Since I identify as a plumber I was highly offended by your implication that plumber techniques are somehow inferior.

[William Davis]

Like the editor comment no offense intended, all plumbers please accept my apologies.

William

[Ronald Scott]

Just to support my contention that this issue (chamber length) is "confusing" -- check the article I linked to. The caption under the photo of the chamber length gauge reads: "As this simple chamber gauge shows, the chamber on this gun is short by today’s standards. If a 2 3/4-inch shell is fired in this chamber, the shell will open into the forcing cone, causing high pressure and damage to the shot column. The result will be excessive recoil and poor patterns."

That's the common misconception -- probably promoted by lawsuit phobia. As Scott Chapman noted in post #31 in this thread:

The google document that I posted was previously posted by Drew Hause back in April of this year. He wrote:

"Major Sir Gerald Burrard, The Modern Shotgun, Volume II, “The Cartridge”, 1955 3rd Revised Edition, p. 154 in reference to modern “star” crimped paper cases
“For all practical purposes any increase in pressure due to the longer cartridge case really does not exist provided the correct powder and shot charges for a nominal 2 1/2 inch cartridge are used.”

Obviously this applies to 2 3/4" hulls in 2 5/8" 12g chambers.

A summary of Bell's and Armbrust's study “Long Shells in Short Chambers”, in “Finding Out for Myself” Part V, Double Gun Journal, Winter 2001 is about 1/3 down here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...vwLYc-kGA/edit

The pressure increase for one load was 1200 psi

[Dean Romig]

But generally speaking, with an identical load but in a longer shell that opens into the forcing cone, the pressure rise is a mere couple of hundred lbs. p.s.i. and is so negligible that neither the shooter nor the gun even feel it.

For years I shot 2 3/4” AA trap loads in my DH with Titanic barrels with 2 9/16” chambers. Every shell I extracted from the gun after firing had pinched and frayed mouths, indicating they had opened way into the cones. Increased felt recoil from these shells was quite negligible and not a cause for concern... even for my oil-soaked stock head which, to this day, shows no sign of damage due to heavy recoil.

However, it needs to be reiterated that a shooter NEEDS TO KNOW THE CONDITION OF HIS BARRELS, CHAMBERS AND WALL THICKNESSES.



.

[William Davis]

12 & 20 G have settled on AA hulls for my “short” chambered Parker’s. They are about the shortest factory hull I measure them at 2 & 11/16. Measure fired not very precise but they work well with lightest published Alliant loads.

16 is were I am fussy about length. Parker Hammer with lightning cuts, Twist too. Use RST 2 1/2 new then reloaded.

Bit too long is gun specific my opinion. Some OK others not.

William

[Ronald Scott]

Finally got a copy of Bell’s article in the Winter 2001 DGJ. Very in-depth and interesting article—well worth reading if you shoot guns with 2 1/2” chambers. As a bonus there is an article about the 16 gauge Parker mentioned in WHF’s New England Grouse Shooting.

PS: if anyone knows how to rotate photos please let me know. I tried everything I could think of:banghead:

[Drew Hause]

A summary of Bell's and Armbrust's study “Long Shells in Short Chambers”, in “Finding Out for Myself” Part V, Double Gun Journal, Winter 2001 is about 1/3 down here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZIo0y746UsSRZIgRuuxwAbZjSBHitO_EanvwLYc-kGA/edit

[Ronald Scott]

A summary of Bell's and Armbrust's study “Long Shells in Short Chambers”, in “Finding Out for Myself” Part V, Double Gun Journal, Winter 2001 is about 1/3 down here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZIo0y746UsSRZIgRuuxwAbZjSBHitO_EanvwLYc-kGA/edit

thanks for the repost -- some of the material is pretty funny:

1. Experts on Guns and Shooting, George Teasdale Teasdale-Buckell, 1900
http://books.google.com/books?id=4xRmHkr7Lp8C&pg=PA373&dq
On the subject of steel v. Damascus, Mr Stephen Grant is very clear, and much prefers Damascus for hard working guns. He related an anecdote of one of his patrons, whose keeper stupidly put a 12-bore cartridge into his master’s gun without knowing that he had previously inserted a 20-case, which had stuffed up the barrel. Fortunately, no burst occurred, but a big bulge, which, however, Mr Grant hammered down, and the gun is now as good as ever.

11. http://www.trapshooters.com/threads/k80-blowing-up.476009/page-5
I stood next to a guy who blew up an off brand gun with reloads There was quite the kaboom. The barrel flew about 20 yards behind him and landed up in a tree. Took us a while to find it because we were searching downrange. Amazingly, no injuries. He had been given reloading equipment by someone moving away. He had a press, some components, some powder in a plain brown bag, no scale so he used a powder bushing his friend recommended.

[Russell E. Cleary]

rotated photos from Sherman Bell article in DOUBLE GUN JOURNAL. (For method used, check your Private Messages).

[Ronald Scott]

A nieghbor is cleaning out her basement

[Russell E. Cleary]

Ron:
Interesting photo of the array from the lady’s basement.

Makes me feel humble and respectful.

[Dean Romig]

I see about six or seven firearms represented by the various ammo there. Where do you suppose those guns are?





.

[Ronald Scott]

I see about six or seven firearms represented by the various ammo there. Where do you suppose those guns are?

I know where a couple are. The 22 hornet was a pre 64 Model 70 which the owner had re-chambered by Griffin and Howe in the 50's to the 222 Remington. That one is in my gun safe. The 20 gauge is still around -- it's a cased 2 barrel set Parker which the current owner is sitting on (i've never seen it and no nothing else about it). And the 12 gauge was a Fox something or other which was bored full and full. That one is probably long gone. I know nothing of the 32 auto or what the 22 blanks were used in. The 38 special -- no idea. Same goes for the 32 rimfire and the 30-06. If only these inanimate objects could talk ...

[Dean Romig]

That picture Ron Scott posted of the page of “What Ever Happened to the Little Gun” prompted me to take a little ride about 3 miles west of my house in Andover to where the “Harnden farmhouse” once stood on the “Boston to Lowell” road (now route 38) just above the bridge (over the Shawsheen River in Tewksbury. MA). The Harnden farmhouse has long since been razed and the Tewksbury Country Club now stands on the former Harnden property. Route 38 bears no resemblance to the “Boston to Lowell road” these days either. In my picture the Shawsheen River bridge is just beyond the camera’s view around a bit to the right.

.

[Ronald Scott]

Dean — interesting, I didn’t know that’s where Harnden’s farm was. I’ll be in Tewksbury this afternoon visiting my daughters and will check it out. I’ve had lunch at that golf course before but didn’t know what I was looking at... It’s hard to believe that was once good pa’tridge cover.